Document Page1 of 2

THEWALL gmm JOURNAL.

A major deceptionon 'global warming'
WallStreetJournal;NewYork; lun 12, 1996;Seitz,Frederick;

Edition: Easternedition
Start Pa~e: A16
ISSN: 00999660
Subject Terms: Research
Professionalethics
Greenhouse effect
Climate
Companies: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Abstract:
FrederickSeitz asserts that the report on global warming releasedin Jun 1996 by the UN
Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Changeis not the same version that was approved by the
contributing body of scientists listed on the title page. Seitz explains how the events that led to the
IPCCreport are "a disturbing corruption of the peer-review process" and says the deleted passages
removed "hints of the skepticism" with which many scientists regard claims about global warming.

Full Text:
Copyright Dow Jones& CompanyInc Jun 12, 1996

Last week the IntergovernmentalPanelon ClimateChange,a United Nationsorganizationregardedby

many asthe bestsourceof scientific informationaboutthe humanimpacton the earth'sclimate, released
"The Scienceof ClimateChange1995,"its first new reportin five years.The reportwill surelybe
hailed asthe latestandmost authoritativestatementon global warming. Policy makersand the press
aroundthe world will likely view the report asthe basisfor critical decisionson energypolicy that
would havean enormousimpacton U.S. oil and gaspricesandon the internationaleconomy.

This IPCC report,like all others,is held in suchhigh regardlargely becauseit hasbeenpeer-reviewed.
Thatis, it hasbeenread,discussed, modifiedandapproved by aninternational body of experts.These
scientistshavelaid their reputationson the line. But this reportis not what it appearsto be -- it is not the
versionthatwasapproved by thecontributingscientists listedon thetitle page.In my morethan60
yearsasa memberof the Americanscientific community,including serviceaspresidentof both the
NationalAcademyof Sciencesand the AmericanPhysicalSociety,I haveneverwitnesseda more
disturbingcorruptionof the peer-reviewprocessthanthe eventsthat led to this IPCC report.

A comparisonbetweenthe reportapprovedby the contributingscientistsand the publishedversion

revealsthat key changeswere madeafter the scientistshad met andacceptedwhat they thoughtwas the
final peer-reviewedversion.The scientistswere assumingthat the IPCC would obey the IPCC Rules--
a body of regulationsthat is supposedto governthe panel'sactions.Nothing in the IPCC Rulespermits
anyoneto changea scientific reportafter it hasbeenacceptedby the panelof scientific contributorsand
the full IPCC.

The participatingscientistsaccepted"The Scienceof ClimateChange"in Madrid last November;the

--- full IPCC acceptedit the following month in Rome.But more than 15 sectionsin Chapter8 of the report
--the key chaptersettingout the scientific evidencefor andagainsta humaninfluenceover climate --
were changedor deletedafter the scientistschargedwith examiningthis questionhad acceptedthe
supposedlyfinal text.

Few of thesechangesweremerely cosmetic;nearly all worked to removehints of the skepticismwith

1/28/2003 Co";
"a""
 Document Page2 of 2

which many scientistsregardclaims that humanactivities arehaving a major impacton climate in

generaland on global warming in particular.

The following passages

areexamplesof thoseincludedin the approvedreportbut deletedfrom the
supposedlypeer-reviewedpublishedversion:

-- "Noneof the studiescited abovehasshownclearevidencethat we canattributethe observed

[climate] changesto the specificcauseof increasesin greenhousegases."

-- "No studyto datehaspositively attributedall or part [of the climate changeobservedto date] to
anthropogenic[man-made]causes."

-- "Any claimsof positive detectionof significantclimate changearelikely to remaincontroversialuntil

uncertaintiesin the total naturalvariability of the climate systemarereduced."

The reviewingscientistsusedthis original languageto keepthemselvesand the IPCC honest.I am in no

position to know who madethe major changesin Chapter8; but the report'slead author,BenjaminD.
Santer,mustpresumablytake the major responsibility.

IPCC reportsareoften calledthe" consensus"view. If they leadto carbontaxesand restraintson

economicgrowth, they will havea major and almostcertainly destructiveimpact on the economiesof
the world. Whateverthe intent was of thosewho madethesesignificant changes,their effect is to
deceivepolicy makersandthe public into believing that the scientific evidenceshowshumanactivities
arecausingglobal warming.

If the IPCC is incapableof following its most basicprocedures,it would be best to abandonthe entire
IPCC process,or at leastthat part that is concernedwith the scientific evidenceon climate change,and
look for morereliablesourcesof adviceto governmentson this importantquestion.

Mr. Seitzis presidentemeritusof RockefellerUniversity andchairmanof the GeorgeC. Marshall

Institute.

(Seerelatedletters:"Lettersto the Editor: No Deceptionin Global Warming Report" --WSJ June25,

1996)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.

1/28/2003
.c